Representation of women in Disney films......please help!

[MrBananaBeak]

Hi,
I am currently researching how the representation of women in Disney films has changed over time for my A-level exams. I am a huge fan of Disney films and the ideas I am presenting are merely thoughts and observations that I would love your opinions on.

The first observation I made was how in the earlier films (30’s - 60’s) the heroines were a lot more passive.
Snow White- was forced to work for her evil step-mum, so she ran away only to work for 7 little men. She fell asleep and simply waited for a man to rescue her.
Cinderella- again, forced to work by an evil step-mum. She can only escape when she falls in love with a prince who rescues her.
Sleeping Beauty- She dreams of meeting her ‘prince’ throughout the film. She is then put to sleep for the rest of the film until the prince wakes her.

Compare this to the more recent films (80’s - 00’s) starting with the little mermaid, the heroines appear to get stronger and stronger until Mulan, who is (I think) the first Disney heroine to actually defeat a villain.

But even though the heroines have changed and developed over time, there are still huge similarities between them. Women in nearly all Disney films seem incapable of saving their own lives.
Snow White and Aurora are the obvious ones but even in the modern films, Belle gets rescued from a pack of wolves, Esmeralda gets rescued from the burning stake and Jane gets saved from the wild baboons.

Also, most Disney women seem to dress the same. Why do nearly all the heroines dress in light blue, & most of the villains dress in blacks/purples. Of course there are exceptions, Esmeralda wears purple, this is usually worn by the villains, does this mean that she is being represented as being less than good-she does dance around poles!

Another observation I have made is that as the heroines appear to get stronger over the years, the villains seem to get more masculine. The early films all feature female villains for the passive heroines, the wicked queen, Lady Tremaine, Malificent, Cruella De Vil. But the stronger heroines in the 90’s etc, all feature male villains, Gaston, Governor Ratcliffe, Shan Yu. Even Ursula is much more manly than the villains before her, why is this?
Also, why can’t females defeat the villains themselves, it’s always left up to the man.

There is also a substantial lack of mothers in Disney films. If there is a mother they usually get shot or put in prison (Mrs. Jumbo) fairly quickly. The only reason I can think for this is that it is merely a device for the viewer to sympathise more with the protagonist. Any other ideas or theories?

Finally, I have found a clip from the documentary ‘The Monopoly of Mickey Mouse’. This section presents alot of ideas about the representation of women in Disney films and the messages that are being sent out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D92FyD1c6Ys


Thank you so much for listening to my observations. Any thoughts on anything I have written will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Ben

[Escapay]

I have a feeling you'll be hearing from Mike the Disney Duster very soon...

In the meantime, the only thing I can offer is this...

Even Ursula is much more manly than the villains before her, why is this?

Because she was based on Harris Glenn Milstead aka drag queen Divine.

Scaps

[Disney Duster]

I'm glad you are a boy doing this project. It's a "man's world" and men really need to understand what women are going through.

Anyway, that video was pretty scary. The way they edited all of those Disney clips was really well done, it really showed their points well.

It's interesting how, no matter how strong the woman is, she still gets saved in the end. Snow White sort of saved herself by running away and getting through the woods, which she was terrified of, and she struck a deal with the men to be their maid in exchange for a place to live, adn that washer own doing. But the Huntsman told her to run away, and I don't see what's so bad about cooking and cleaning, except that they're not considered signifigant jobs, but it does sort of reinforce the idea of living with your husband to cook and clean for him. I mean, who gets more, the dwarfs who have a house and a maid, or Snow White who just has a house?

Cinderella is made to work by her stepmother, and it is that situation she wants to leave, so it actually could be saying Cinderella doesn't want to cook and clean for anyone other than herself. Unfortunately, by Disney making her try to see the bright side of things and not get too depressed as she cleans, it could be mistaken for her being fine with it. Then what does she want to escape from? That one's up to the viewer. But, years ago, I never got how Cinderella was saved by a man. She wasn't alseep, needing someone to kiss her. I never saw the prince come and pick her up and take her away from her bad situation. But now I realize a man did come to take her away if the slipper fit her. Of course, Cinderella had to do her part, and she had to give them her slipper in the first place, but I guess that could just be a visual incarnation of the love all the princesses give to the princes to make them save them in the first place.

Still, Cinderella does save herself, or at last have more of a hand in it than Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. When locked in her room, Cinderella uses her brain to think of how to get out when she tells the birds to get Bruno to chase away Lucifer so the mice can give her the key. Later, when the glass slipper is broken, she uses the other slipper she kept to get her happy ending. And even before this, she made a deal with her stepmother to work in exchange for attending the ball, which is want she originally wanted (and it's different from Snow White in that she's not working for shelter, she's only working that night, and she's working for women). Then, there's the idea of karma and being nice to everyone (including saving the mice from Lucifer, from traps) in return for help form them later. But that is also an idea in Snow White, just to a much lesser degree. It's more like Snow White is so nice she just has to get her happy ending.

And that's all I have for now, I don't really care much for the other princesses. Aurora can't really be defended because she was asleep most of the time. However, her movie does show men being rescued by three females, and even Aurora's own salvation is mostly done by those same females, she just needs a prince there for the true love aspect. Ariel saved Eric, so perhaps his saving her was merely in return, similar to how Cinderella saved the mice and they saved her in return. Belle saved the Beast with her true love, like the Disney princes do, but she was saved before that by the wolves. Jasmine...never really saved anyone, but she was feisty and did a lot of things on her own, like Ariel and Belle.

And remember this: don't just take everything in. Challenge it, just like you challenged the Disney films, also challenge the criticism of Disney films. Does it really make sense? What about the rest of the movie, not just the 'bad parts"? And for God's sake, challenge what I have to say!Decide for yourself what sounds right, what's a good argument, and you believe! I bet you already knew that and do that, but I won't let it go unsaid.

EDIT:

I have a feeling you'll be hearing from Mike the Disney Duster very soon...

WOW! You know me so well! Too well?!

[2099net]

I'm sure we had a topic like this in the past, with sombody asking for similar information for a similar reason.

I've done about 20 searches, all to no avail. If only Escapay the Search Wizard could try... The Search Wizard could find it in an instant.

Wahooo! I found it. I don't know if it will be that helpful, but here it is!
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ght=gender

2099net! The new Search Wizard Supreme!

[Escapay]

I have a feeling you'll be hearing from Mike the Disney Duster very soon...

WOW! You know me so well! Too well?!

The topic just screamed, "Mike! Come and talk to me!"

If only Escapay the Search Wizard could try... The Search Wizard could find it in an instant.

<snip>

2099net! The new Search Wizard Supreme!

I'm currently stuck on a lousy computer at school that functions like dial-up, so I can't say as much as I'd like (plus, the stupid right-click button is disabled...however that relates to this, I don't know). .

But to redeem myself, I also found this thread regarding Disney and the roles of women...

Women: Disney vs. Anime

And I remembered this topic which does touch on some points that MrBananaBeak wanted to explore...

Are the Disney Princesses Bad for our Children?

And let's not forget this interesting thread...

Disney, it is time for a black Princess!

Scaps

[2099net]

Disney started making films before the Second World War. It is generally accepted that the women working on the "home front" during WWII was the catalyst that, if not started feminism (after all, we had suffragettes etc. before then) did a heck of a lot to strengthen the movement.

This Disney's early films, including those in the 1950's which were created closely after the war, are products of a pre-feminist age. I don't think this is a criticism, although it sounds that way. You have to compare Disney's 1940's and 1950's films to other entertainment and stories for children at the time. If you do this, Disney comes out just as good, if not better than the majority of other sources.

The only portrayal of women I think is probably slightly offensive today is the hippo ballet dancers in Fantasia. Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are woefully underdeveloped as characters (IMO), but so are the Princes in all three films. While one can easily criticise the lack of development of the movies' heroines, all three films have strong female villains (although I would personally say Maleficent has little more character development than Aurora). To a certain extent, all three villainesses see men as little more than stepping stones towards their own power, and an inconvenience soon afterwards.

It could be argued that the lack of character development of the Princesses was intentional. There is one school of thought that the less distinctive you make a character, the easier it is for a viewer to project themselves into the role. Be it intentional or not, this certainly seems to be happening with the Disney Princesses – especially with children below a certain age. To some extent all-three "early" Princesses are more popular now than they ever were.

It's also clear that towards the end of the 50's things were changing. Prince Philip may be the nominal "hero" of Sleeping Beauty, but really the true heroes are the three fairies. Really, watch it now, and you tell me who has a bigger hand in bringing Maleficent down.

Alice from Alice in Wonderland which was released in-between some of the Princess movies I examined above… Well, I don't really have much to say about Alice really. It's just not a film or character I enjoy. I couldn't really give an assessment beyond the fact that to my eyes, Alice has no arc… no development as the film progresses. I see the Alice who wakes up at the end as being the same Alice who fell asleep at the beginning. She has just as much of a flat, dead personality as Aurora has.

Peter Pan to me has the strongest female characters of any Disney film in the 1940's or 1950's. But perhaps that's looking at things too deeply, being as the film was an adaptation of a stage play written decades before. But in Peter Pan both Wendy and Tinker Bell are females just as strongly defined as Pan himself. In Tinker Bell's case, sex appeal was allowed to be shown in a Disney movie!

Lady, from Lady and the Tramp is just as passive as Aurora is in Sleeping Beauty. It's amazing how Lady can be so… bland for want of a better word, while Perdita from 101 Dalmatians released just a few years later can be so strong and determined. To my mind both Pongo and Perdita are the ultimate Disney parents. Both are willing to go through untold hardships for their puppies. You yourself point out most Disney characters don't have mothers, or loose them during the course of the film. I would say, Perdita is Disney's celebration of motherhood. I wouldn't overlook the importance of Perdita, and the message she brings to the film simply because she's a non-human Disney female.

Talking of non-human characters, isn't it odd The Jungle Book has almost no female presences, apart from bookends at the start and end of the movie. Make of that what you will.

One the whole the Disney films of the 70's reflected more the climate of the era, and regarding their portrayal of women are not particularly notable. Almost all of these portrayals were non-human too.

It's when we get to The Little Mermaid that woman – or more accurately girls – are made the centre point of a film again. The difference between Arial and Aurora or Cinderella is like night and day. Arial is allowed to be mischievous, defy authority and most importantly, Arial is allowed to shape her own destiny. The same is true for every Disney Princess since. I know Disney Duster will disagree with me, but Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty were all victims of events around them. Ariel, Belle etc can still be classed as victims for some of the duration of their movies, but they are just as much victims of their own events and actions as those around them.

The Princess movies do get criticised for the romance by some commentators. But really, every great story, be it an adventure, a thriller, or even a comedy has romance. Be it traditional romantic romance or more lust, sexually driven romance. While it may not be true to say you can't write a good story without romance, it's certainly a lot harder to. It's the single aspect of human life everyone desires to some extent, and to deny it is silly. None of the post 1980's Princesses have come close to passively lying on a slab awaiting a kiss to awaken them as Snow White and Aurora have.

Going back to the appeal of the Princesses, I do think the Little Mermaid and beyond Princesses appeal more to the older audience. Indeed, when looking at adult sized t-shirts etc it's these Princesses that are available more. The fact that they have personality and character make them appeal more to people who want to be entertained than to people who – for want of a better description – would want to "be" them.

I've written a lot more than I intended to. I better stop now. I may post some more thoughts later.

PS You many notice that I've pretty much bashed Aurora at every opportunity in this post. I think that bashing is well deserved.

[Lazario]

I just got finished watching that video clip you gave us, Ben / MrBananaBeak... And it's very good. Everyone should watch it. Right away.

Funnily enough... The arguments they presented against one of Disney's most progressive heroines (Belle) were very good and Disney's most traditional and perhaps offensive representation of women (Snow White) were not at all convincing.

Not to mention they took that scene with Jasmine completely out of context. The woman from the African American studies neglected to mention that in the scenes where Jasmine acts seductively, she's either trying to save everyone (which therefore, isn't selfishly pleasing just herself), or doing to show the male how sexist / chauvenistic he is being.

The argument against Snow White was taken from the "Whistle While You Work" sequence. And that was a poor argument, another example taken out of context. Because this was clearly a highly unrealistic situation. The woman argued that Snow White was acting completely unlike real women do. That is true. But in the very same sequence, if you look at the other details in each animated shot... you'll see wild forest animals who understand her English language, and actually take orders from her and organize into a team to help her clean the house. She was happy and sung / whistled while she cleaned and cooked... but surprisingly, she didn't do all the work herself. She had help. And that's fairly progressive, in my opinion, since the stereotype is that women were left alone in their duty to keep house.

However - they totally nailed Belle. And tore right through Beauty and the Beast. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed all the problems with her relationship with The Beast.

[BelleGirl]

However - they totally nailed Belle. And tore right through Beauty and the Beast. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed all the problems with her relationship with The Beast.

I'm not sure I should watch this vid if that is the case. I'm afraid it will spoil my enjoyment of 'Beauty and the Beast". Interesting that people analyse Disney features in dept, but you can also analyse too much -that is, to death.

[Lazario]

They just say that The Beast is very mean to Belle and that no real woman could put up with how much he yells and screams, how short-tempered he is.

[purin]

Is it really "Disney" or the fairy tales themselves? It's a man's world, and the fairy tales reflect that world. Disney's studios were a man's world. For something different, read Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's Beauty and the Beast. Unlike the Disney movie, the Beast keeps insisting Beauty's dominance over him. Beauty doesn't change the Beast, but recognizes his kindness, which is more important than wit or beauty.

I'd have to say it's both, combined with culture and demands of the audience, and those demands aren't just in the way of feminism. It's not JUST gender roles at work here. It's part of a bigger movement in animation and storytelling. We expect more from the characters in general.

Fairy tales are FULL of all sorts of cultural residues (which is why they're so much a part of our culture and so familiar), ideas about men, women, good, evil, religious beliefs and local cultures. A fairy tale by itself, at least the really old ones that existed as oral tradition before getting written down, doesn't have much in the way of fleshed out or realistic characters. It has archetypes who play out roles in a very symbolic play. Prince and Princess get together, and that's enough for the story. The end.

I think the original fairy tale-type films work this way as well, fleshing the characters and plot a little more to make it work better for film, but putting the real meat of the film in the "extras," these being the animals, good fairies, the dwarfs. Sometimes the villains got more work. As for the main players of the story, the prince and princess, they, for the most part, stay themselves, the standard good woman, the standard good man. The animators called these realistic humans "straight" characters, and found animating them stifling. That's not to say they're entirely dull, but if they were the only characters in the movie, I doubt things would be so interesting.

The "prince" in fairy tales is often a pretty passive character as well who just shows up at the right time in the right place. Same in early Disney films. Prince Philip swung a sword around, but what about the other two "classic" princes? Nobody cares about how they feel. Cinderella's prince just happened to fall in love as planned in his father's scheme to see him get hitched (again, we see his father and the Duke coming up with all this, but none of the prince's thoughts, other than a yawn), and Snow White's walked in on Snow White at the right moment.

In the non-fairy tales, a lot of the main characters also come off as bland. Tinkerbell is memorable because of how expressive she is, but the others are kind of... flat ("We love Neverland! Okay, let's go home."). Alice in Wonderland is all about Wonderland. The films with really interesting main characters are the ones with the cartoony nonhuman characters they felt free to go nuts with.

Nowadays, the main players in fairy tale adaptations are a lot more fleshed out. Their feelings and motives are more complex and clearly stated. Their design is more stylized, and they they do a better job of existing on the same plane as the extras, who now really are subordinate to them as characters. Consider the larger eyes and the more expressive faces and bodies. When humans get more stylized and cartoony, the bodies, both male and female, get exaggerated. They're more interesting to look at, and probably a lot more interesting to animate. Their fairy tales are less about a prince and a princess meeting, but who that prince and princess are, and the whole personal struggle and process that the two had to go through to do it.



Other thoughts:

One thing that has always bothered me was that the centaur segment showed centaurs going through all this trouble to find their mates, when all they needed to do was find the one of the opposite sex of the right color. Red with red, yellow with yellow... Oh, here's a sad little blue who can't find a mate. Look, there's another blue one! She's not alone.

Of course, we still have a prince and princess, and love (unnecessary love stories bore me, to tell the truth). We do all need saving, though it tends to the form of male rescuing female, even when the lead character going through the most growth is female. We should move away from this. We have to consider whose struggle is coming into play when we do our final battles. We should stress cooperation as well.

It's so hard for sex to not be a woman's weapon. How can you not go right for the family jewels when they're out in the open and advertised loudly as the biggest weak point? It is easily overused. There's a time to throw in sex as the weapon, and a time to think of a different weapon. In Jasmine's case, she knew what people thought of her, so she used it when she saw people were thinking that way.

Women grow up knowing they must be beautiful. It's so much a part of our identity that we relate to it.I think it's why women are more comfortable with being sexy around each other. We can see a woman shaking her ass and not feel threatened sexually. We relate to playing sexy, even when we don't know a thing about it, because it's so much part of our identity. I mean, for most of history it was the only thing we were allowed to cultivate. It's all we have. It takes some real thought to say "Wait, this activity doesn't have to be normal! Why don't men feel this way?"

In defense of Snow White.., as unlikely as it is that princess would know how to cook (the queen did make her clean, so maybe she cooked), a person who knows how to prepare food has a skill that's always in demand. If I wanted to take shelter in someone's house, I'd offer to make myself useful, probably by keeping house.

Although she's modeled after a drag queen, I think Ursula's very womanly because of her huge body and personality. She's that hardened businesswoman who's seen it all and knows the system.

[candydog]

When I watch the Disney movies as a male, I think to myself: what makes the role that the male plays so much better than the female role? I personally think that in movies like Snow White and Cinderella, the heroines have the upper hand.
In those movies, the men are pretty much treated as tools. They are brought in when they are needed and vanish to give the heroine some screen time. Why don't the Princes of these movies gain the same popularity as the Princesses? Simply because they aren't really characters, they are plot devices. Boys don't care about a man who just rides in at the end of the movie after one or two infrequent appearances. Girls on the other hand, spend most of the film with the Princess. They learn of their hopes, their dreams, kindness and personality. They may not be the best representation of women, but it is a representation of a human being with thoughts and feelings of their own, something that many of their Princes never get to have.

I do agree with Lazario about clips being taken out of context. I also noticed that scenes in these films such as Ariel's rescue of the drowning Prince Eric and Belle's love saving the Beast from his curse were not mentioned in the documentary. To me this just devalues the overall documentary as it shows viewers that they are willing to cut out the other side of the story just to highlight their own issue and get their point across.

What do we learn about men in Snow White? Apparently, it teaches girls that all they should do is stay at home and cook and clean for their men. If we take that literally, then I guess that men are going to be seen in real life as they are often portrayed in film and television: incapable of looking after themselves. They have no idea how to cook, clean or even wash.

As for Disney Princesses being made to look attractive, look at the males in Disney films too! Aladdin, Phillip and Eric are just a few Disney heroes who are made to look attractive. Even the Beast transforms into a handsome Prince, and Esmeralda marries Phoebus rather than Quasimodo in the end. Not only that, but also one Disney hero, John Smith, is thought to have been a short, unattractive little man in reality, yet in the movie became a strapping handsome explorer from England.

I'm not saying that the issues raised in the videos don't exist, I'm just saying that they often apply to the males too and that should be remembered.

[singerguy04]

Well I just watched the entire film (5 parts on youtube, i think...) and I'm going to have to agree that any true Disney fan should watch this and take many of it's points into consideration.

My overall opinion is that there was a lot that I didn't agree with but some very overwhelming and somewhat alarming points were made. I personally have problems with documentaries like this because I don't think they cover all the bases. They attack the films but don't offer other points of view, which is kind of funny considering they are arguing that Disney is using the media to sway the people think about things and they were essentially doing the same thing.

I think now I'm going to take some of the films that were made examples of and either defend them or agree with statements made...

Beauty and the Beast
Beauty and the Beast was stamped as a example of an abusive relationship in this documentary. They say that the film is teaching young girls that no matter what a man will do/say to you that as long as you kiss him and show him love that he will change into your prince charming, therefore setting young women up for abusive relationships. They however decide to not include the fact that Belle hated The Beast and runs away, but when she is attacked by wolves he saves her life. This sequence was also brought up in a section of the documentary speaking against women being able to protect themselves... I'm sorry, but if a pack of wolves were attacking anyone who was not armed, they would be killed. This was an extremely poor example on their part. I think this scene shows that if The Beast were really this horrible monster that he wouldn't have tried to save her life. Belle being a very kind hearted and thoughtful individual (which is presented in the film before this point in examples between her relationship with her father and people in the town.) see's this and admits that maybe there is something more to The Beast other than a monster. After ALL of this, which does regretfully take place in a few minutes in the film, is when they begin to fall in love. Some children may not realize all of this, but I feel that it parents were an active role in children's lives that they could help them see this (being a camp counselor over the past two summers, I get to spend a lot of time with children so this whole me vs. modern day parenting thing will most likely come up a lot). Yet, another thing to support The Beast's character is that the film shows that he really is just ill-tempered so therefore it's not like the abuse continued after he Belle showed him love. I think that Beauty and the Beast shows that forgiveness can be a good thing. The film shows you to look deeper into someones personality and not to judge them on the outside. I think that is the BIGGEST point made in this film, this BIGGEST point the Disney stresses, and I personally think that's what most children walk away with.

Aladdin
The song Arabian nights is a pretty racist song, and I don't think that there is anyway someone can say that its not when one of the lines is "They will cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric but hey, it's home". Also, the whole I'm going to chop off your hand because you stole an apple thing isn't really acurate either, but they do clear this up in the documentary. These two points cannot be covered up by a positive explanation and there are problems in this which is sad to me that no one in the development of this film noticed that this might cause a problem. In fact, it makes me wonder if they did know (cue dramatic music, bum bum bum!!!). I'm going to agree with Lazario in saying that Jasmine flirting with Jafar was taken out of context. She wasn't exactly doing it to get what she wants. It was obvious leading up to that scene that Jafar basically wanted her as a mindless (dare I say) sex-slave. So giving him what he wants to distract him from Aladdin getting the lamp isn't really her being sexy to get what she wants. It's Jasmine doing what she can in the circumstances to help out. I guess it can be argued that she could've broken something or begun doing something else to distract Jafar, but as far as dramatic effect and character development goes her getting over her disgust for Jafar to seduce him is a good choice.

The Films that Disney himself worked on (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - The Jungle Book)
I find that people seem to forget what was politically correct and what wasn't at these times. I'm pretty sure that if the general public had the HUGE political issues with the films that these people seem to have today then this wouldn't be a new subject at all. The culture back then was not as sensitive to minorities as we are today. That was a problem, but what do these people suggest we do about it now? Is Disney supposed to lock away Peter Pan forever because of the way Native Americans were represented in it? An even worse thing would be to edit the sequence out. I think i'd rather have it be thrown away with Song of the South than have it be edited. This is when I blame education in school systems. If children grow up believing that the Native Americans in Peter Pan are a true representation of these people, that is really not Disney's fault at all. The same can be said for many other things in this case; the crows in Dumbo, the siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp, King Louie and his gang of monkeys in The Jungle Book. The Jungle Book isn't really a good example of a white man entering the forest by the way, considering that Mowgli isn't white . I can't really say much about Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora because overall they are all weak characters. Then again, it's not like any of the other characters in these films recieve great character development. I think Disney puts way too much on these three princesses. They are going to need a good amount of commercial support since they are so old, but this constant barage of it isn't good. It would be better if Disney put more focus on more recent princesses because they have more character to go off of. This also leaves the door open for new princesses to come in and a chance to create a princess line that is more representative of the people who look to it for entertainment. In this respect characters like Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora aren't out there for the modern day scrutiny.

Latino's in Disney films
I found this whole section to be a little ignorant considering that they all decided to omit the existance of Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros. As far as Chihuahuas go, would it really make and sense to have them played by anyone other than a latino? I also have to say that I'm pretty sure this documentary was produced before The Emperor's New Groove. The Emperor's New Groove isn't exactly a good example either though now that I think of it because nothing about it really goes into Inca culture, which is really sad to me... At least it introduces a major character cast that is South American.


Well, I have to get going to Dinner and I have a rehearsal to attend to, but I have a lot more I want to touch up on so I'll make another post later on tonight. This is just something that I feel kinda passionate about because I had a class last year that kind of focused on how Disney represents the U.S. We brought up a lot of these points in class actually. I want to touch on a lot of the other films post-disney.

[purin]

Princes don't get much character (they're supposed to be the most boring role to get/animate), but in Disney movies in general, male characters generally don't have their gender as part of their personality. They're more their own characters than "male" characters. Does Mickey really assert masculinity? Not at all. He's hardly male at all. He's a good natured little mouse we all love. Donald is angry. Goofy is goofy.
Minne and Daisy are primarily female counterparts to Mickey and Donald. Male characters feel more basic and themselves, more whole, while female characters feel like females first, like that is half of their character.

I think there's also an element of helplessness that found its way into the fairy tale stories. It's not just the ideals. People likely felt so helpless in such dark times, and women and children represented helplessness, as there was little they could do for themselves at that time, which is why so many deal with women and children getting tossed around by evil. They wanted to be assured that virtue would ultimately get repaid. Some involve rather passive male characters just stumbling upon fortune. There are a few involving being clever to cheat your way to fortune. For men and women, obtaining a spouse isn't about love. It's about security. It's sort of like getting a good job.

While he may not have been handsome, the real John Smith certainly liked to paint himself as a very important dashing explorer in his stories. XD

I guess they subconsciously make both sexes insecure... oh, but we love them so!

[MagicMirror]

In defense of Snow White, aside from what has already been said about changing ideals and images of women: I think Snow White is the best of the Walt-era princesses (if not all Disney princesses), both in her personality and her role in the story. I like the idea that the Queen is intended as Snow White's evil doppelgänger - as Robin Allan puts it, 'where the Queen is, Snow White is not, and vice versa'. Her transformation into the Witch emphasises her role as a sort of grotesque, funhouse mirror image of her stepdaughter. Snow White's complete and utter innocence is intended as juxtaposition to the corruption, decadence, and perhaps even sexual maturity of the Queen, and it works very well. Could this be inspired by similar 'doppelgänger' themes in the German Expressionist films Walt screened for his artists? I don't know, I haven't read enough about that. But the power of the Queen versus the helplessness of Snow White is what drives the story.

But Snow White's helplessness isn't due to a weak soul or a submissive nature; it's because she's a creature of pure good, and is unable to understand evil. This is why she's so confused and frightened when the Huntsman tells her of the Queen's intentions, and why she is unable to sense the evil in the Witch - as a force of pure good, she is incapable of aggression. It is also why everyone but the Queen is determined to do all they can to help and protect her. She embodies an inherent goodness that the Queen envies and can never have.

'Cinderella' and 'Sleeping Beauty' are obviously very similar to 'Snow White', so there is a similar sort of heroine/villainess juxtaposition in both, though it isn't as strongly thought out. I don't think Aurora's inherent goodness really comes across in 'Sleeping Beauty', effectively rendering her as a helpless political tool - the main reason she is so important is apparently so she can marry Philip and unite the two kingdoms. But there's still the powerful, mature female versus the innocent, young female.

[SwordInTheStone777]

I understand this is for a project, but these are animated characters, so I can see how you can comare and contrast similarites of how women are treated and what not, but these are faity tales, so you can compare and contrast so much.

[Lazario]

I do agree with Lazario about clips being taken out of context. I also noticed that scenes in these films such as Ariel's rescue of the drowning Prince Eric and Belle's love saving the Beast from his curse were not mentioned in the documentary.

Fantasy / fairy tale value of the story aside... I have to completely agree with them about Beauty and the Beast. I meant it when I said they nailed the problems with her character and that film as a whole. The "love saving a life" aspect does not deepen Belle or make her any more complex as a character. That aspect of the fairy tale is a cliche, very predictable, and just goes with the territory. Every good character in these sorts of tales is saved by someone's love.

The aspects of the film they were very accurate on were 1) the Beast's abusive nature and how flighty and unhealthy to women it is that Belle ignored that in the interest of seeing through to his heart. That does send a negative message to girls because real life is not like that at all. In real life, women stay in abusive relationships, many which never improve, and sometimes die as a result of their devotion. 2) all the other female characters. Especially the feather duster saying "no" and meaning "yes." Belle was the only female character in the movie with the slightest shred of healthy attitudes and behaviors. The only thing that could possibly excuse this is that it's a period movie. And, how many parents explain this to their children?

As for Disney Princesses being made to look attractive, look at the males in Disney films too! Aladdin, Phillip and Eric are just a few Disney heroes who are made to look attractive. Even the Beast transforms into a handsome Prince, and Esmeralda marries Phoebus rather than Quasimodo in the end. Not only that, but also one Disney hero, John Smith, is thought to have been a short, unattractive little man in reality, yet in the movie became a strapping handsome explorer from England.

Good point. Except you forgot one big thing. The male sidekicks. They don't have to be attractive at all to be good natured or win in the end. Now, how many female characters who aren't animals are attractive without being love interests?

This documentary has a very good point. But to get that across, it took a few scenes directly out of context. Others they kept in proper context and still made their point.

[BelleGirl]

The aspects of the film they were very accurate on were 1) the Beast's abusive nature and how flighty and unhealthy to women it is that Belle ignored that in the interest of seeing through to his heart. That does send a negative message to girls because real life is not like that at all. In real life, women stay in abusive relationships, many which never improve, and sometimes die as a result of their devotion. 2) all the other female characters. Especially the feather duster saying "no" and meaning "yes." Belle was the only female character in the movie with the slightest shred of healthy attitudes and behaviors. The only thing that could possibly excuse this is that it's a period movie. And, how many parents explain this to their children?

BelleGirl says: In real life there are no princes tranformed into hideous beasts! I dont' see how a fairy tale like B&tB could serve as an example for behaviour in real life. You don't suggest that women might stay in an abusive relationship because the watched that Disney film? Mostly it is because they're so intimidated that they're afraid to leave.

In general I don't think the influence of Disney movies is that far-reaching.

As for Disney Princesses being made to look attractive, look at the males in Disney films too! Aladdin, Phillip and Eric are just a few Disney heroes who are made to look attractive. Even the Beast transforms into a handsome Prince, and Esmeralda marries Phoebus rather than Quasimodo in the end. Not only that, but also one Disney hero, John Smith, is thought to have been a short, unattractive little man in reality, yet in the movie became a strapping handsome explorer from England.

Good point. Except you forgot one big thing. The male sidekicks. They don't have to be attractive at all to be good natured or win in the end. Now, how many female characters who aren't animals are attractive without being love interests?

But these male sidekicks in general have no love interest, do they?

Good points about Quasimodo and John Smith of course. First of all, if anyone deserves the love of Esmeralda, it's Quasimodo, alas he only gets her friendship. But how many deformed people find true love in real life? Esmeralda ending up with Quasimoda would be very idealistic, but not very true to life I'm afraid. (though I hear he finds a new love interest in the sequel, which I don't care to watch)
About John Smith: I remember reading a "behind the scenes of ' Pocahontas' " page in Donald Duck showing a portrait of the real John Smith with the comment " he was not as handsome as the one from the film, but he was brave," or something along those lines. I think it was pretty good they gave this kind of candid information, so that readers could make a distinction between movie and reality.

I also think it's not so much Disney in particular that always has handsome people forming romantic couples, but Hollywood in general.

Therefore it was kind of refreshing to see the nerdy-looking Milo Tatch cast as the hero in "Atlantis, the lost Empire" If only the movie would have been more appealing (at least I did not find it appealing).

[Disney's Divinity]

Sorry, double post (and someone posted before I could delete it). >>;

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, examples for the recent generation:

Ariel saved Eric (and Flounder earlier). She also did fight Ursula, but couldn't defeat her. Even Eric had to use a ship to do it. Besides, Ariel had proved her love for Eric constantly throughout the film, it was the man's turn.

Belle rescued her father by trading her life and prematurely guessing that she's was basically damned (trapped with a Beast in a castle doesn't seem like the ideal vacation). And it was also her love and beauty of mind that saved the Beast from death and imprisonment in an animal's form.

Jasmine attempted to save Aladdin from Jafar (by allowing him to get to the lamp) and nearly died in the process (the hourglass which, by the way, gave me an obsession with them at a young age). There's also the example early in the film where she proves to Aladdin that she's not helpless by jumping across roofs. And even if she wasn't that heroic, the film is called Aladdin after all.

The older films are harder to argue for because you have to think more about it; there wasn't any clear show of bravery. Still, Disney Duster mostly covered them. Except Aurora, who I've admired more since a fan of hers pointed out that she basically sacrificed her chances with the man she met in the forest by honoring her heritage.

As for the non-princesses, Eilonwy helped Taran to escape the Horned King's castle, Megara died saving Hercules, Esmeralda recued Phoebus, Jane was (I think) knocked out by Clayton, and Kida saved all of Atlantis.

The only real thing missing (as far as femininity is concerned) from Disney films is that almost none of the [human] girls have biological and/or benevolent mothers. The few characters who do are mostly animals. Still, this could also be misconstrued: maybe the story writers assumed that, if mothers were involved, there would be no problems to create a story from (Snow White and Cinderella wouldn't be abused, Ariel wouldn't be so overprotected and reprimanded by her father, Belle wouldn't have to defend her father and Jasmine wouldn't be as restricted from life). You also need to take into account that Cinderella and Aurora were more rescued by their fairy godmothers than their princes. Similarly, the Blue Fairy spends the entirety of Pinocchio protecting the puppet and caring for Geppetto.

[Joshrzmeup]

I actually did something similar to this topic for a paper in my women's history class and received an A+.
Only I used movies with a definate time period as to when they took place, not when they were made. (ex: Mary Poppins was set in 1910, Pocahontas was supposed to be 1607). It just helped the timeline of showing what changed, if anything.
One good book that I used was 'From Mouse To Mermaid' and 'The Mouse That Roared'.
Also, get books on the time periods and/or subjects. Like if you are including Mulan, get a book on the Ancient Chinese and then see how disney represents what is said in there.

But don't just stick to Heroines, i'd include Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks in it as well. Mrs. Banks was campaigning by day when her husband was at work, but when she got home, she put all traces of her day-job away and became a weak and submissive housewife.

You can even use Princess Diaries 2 in your story, how Mia is forced to get married because an unmarried woman can't become queen, but she stands up for herself and get them to change their minds and let her rule and take her seriously.